User talk:Averroes 22/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hi The good man 232! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Growth of religion

Hello, The good man 232,

So you don't end up in an edit war with Eliko007 and possible get a block, please make use of the article talk page to discuss your differences with this editor. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Liz, I am not in edit war, because I am not revent his edits, rather he is the one who is doing this. The good man 232 (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

COULD you please join to talk page, instead of your POV pushing. Eliko007 (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Eliko007, ok, what do you want to say? The good man 232 (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Remember, WP:3RR applies "whether involving the same or different material". You may want to hold yourself to WP:1RR for a while. That's a suggestion, not a requirement. --Yamla (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Yamla: ok, thanks for the note. The good man 232 (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

This insane, I replayed on Talk:Growth of religion. Sound to me like a lack of reading comprehension. Eliko007 (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Hello, I'm Rsk6400. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Caucasian race, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Your edit been reverted by three editors, and two admin, go to the talk page to get a consensus, that how Wikipedia work. You did not give any convincing argument. On another note, the admin who wrote that sentence for you because you were misrepresenting it asked you not to add it in lead. Eliko007 (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I gave different arguments, for example, the introduction should give a brief summary of the article, per WP: LEDE. Adding what you want to add isn't helpful. Especially that this specific factor has a modest impact on the future Christian growth according to the study. What is your argument to add it?. Eliko007 (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

So what? that your argument because it has the largest net losses, so it should be added to the introduction?, you clearly don't understand what lead is about Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lead paragraph of an article should provide an overview of the rest of the article. Eliko007 (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Stop accusing and personal attack, If you think his my "sockpuppet" run an SPI. And join the talk page instead of the edit warring. Eliko007 (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I suggested a text included that includes a statement that you want to add and to cover the further content of the Christian popaution growth, check it. Eliko007 (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. If you engage in personal attacks against other contributors, as you did here and here and here, I will have no choice but to block you again. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

January 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Growth of religion; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Note

Please read the citation carefully, before any further edit, the source cited if religious switching were not taken into account it may have a slight or modest impact or difference; in the end according to the the study Christianity may lose 66 million; which may have a small impact on the future since Christianity may gain 750 million adherents due to other factors. Eliko007 (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Eliko007, which edit you mean? The good man 232 (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The article is about Christianity; what has to do the effect of religious conversions among other religions?; it's irrelevant here. Eliko007 (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:The_good_man_232 reported by User:Shrike (Result: ). Thank you. Shrike (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry) for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Shrike (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Fixed your talk page archiving

Hi! I took the liberty of fixing the auto-archiving settings on this page. --rchard2scout (talk) 08:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Growth of religion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asia-Pacific region. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Averroes 22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm really sorry for what happened and I promise to make a useful edits after the block removed, but the block period is too long. Can you please shortening the block period or restrict it only on certain pages? --Averroes 22 (talk)

Decline reason:

This does not address your personal attacks on other editors. Yamla (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Averroes 22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm really sorry for what happened. I have understood the reason for my block and I promise to make a useful edits after the block removed, but the block period is too long. Can you please shortening the block period or restrict it only on certain pages? --Averroes 22 (talk)

Decline reason:

If this were the first time you'd been blocked, or if nothing you'd done had required RevDel ... but it isn't. You were once blocked indefinitely; you should consider a 2-week block for your latest behavior to be leniency. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You are not permitted to remove (or edit) declined unblock requests for your currently active block. Do not do this again. --Yamla (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Yamla: Ok 👍. --Averroes 22 (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert - Armenia and Azerbaijan

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

As part of the discretionary sanctions in that topic area, the page Armenian genocide is under a WP:1RR restriction, meaning you shouldn't revert more than once in 24 hours. You have already reverted at least twice, so please be cautious about making any more edits that undo the work of other editors. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I have reverted only once here. --Averroes 22 (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

You are right. At the time of my posting, you had only made the one revert. Since then, I would count this edit, posted just after my 1RR notice, as a reversion. You again removed "forced islamization" and a wikilink to Hidden Armenians from the infobox. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Question about your comments

Hi there! I am wondering how to interpret two of your comments, specifically:

• "You look don't understand well", addressed to buidhe, and
• "You look don't read it well", addressed to me.

One possible reading of these comments is as an attack on buidhe's capacity to understand, and my capacity to read. You may also just be saying that buidhe misunderstood your point, and that I must have missed something in my reading. Can you help me understand what you meant? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Surly no, I don't attack on buidhe's capacity to understand, and your capacity to read, sounds like you're assuming bad faith on me, but since this sentence may be misunderstood, I will not use it again. --Averroes 22 (talk) 03:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I saw the possibility of bad faith and wanted to clarify. I really appreciate your explanation. Thanks, Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. The Armenian genocide page has a 1RR in effect (t · c) buidhe 19:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)